portation to be under a separate and major commission devoted solely and entirely to that subject, than to be under a junior commission that is subordinate to the Interstate Commerce Commission?

Colonel YOUNG. I cannot say, sir; I have not studied the bill from that angle at all.

Senator AUSTIN. So your answer just made, that you have no objection to this bill, does not take into consideration the possible alternative of having a commission that is distinct from the Interstate Commerce Commission so far as its authority goes to handle this subject?

Colonel YOUNG. I think my answer would have been better had I said that the Air Corps had no objection to the bill.

Senator MCCARRAN. Senator Austin, may I say that I think you and I perhaps have discussed this matter from various angles in times past, but I want to say that I tried to make the record indicate that my first bill provided for a separate commission. My view was and is that this matter should be handled by a separate commission, but I found that it was impossible to put such a measure through, and that I could get through, perhaps, a bill putting all of the regulatory features into the Interstate Commerce Commission, by creating a distinct bureau, so to speak, within the Interstate Commerce Commission for the management and regulation of this science and industry; and with that in mind this bill is framed. Not that I, as the author of the bill, have ever abandoned the idea of an independent commission.

Senator TRUMAN. Are there any further questions? If not, I will ask if the Department of Commerce is represented?

Mr. FAGG (representing the Department of Commerce). Mr. Chairman, the bill introduced on March 3 reached us so lately that we are not prepared to present today the views of the Secretary of Commerce. We should like to do that a little later.

Senator TRUMAN. Can you do it tommorrow morning?

Mr. FAGG. I think that would be all right, sir.

Senator MCCARRAN. Is the National Advisory Committee represented here? If so, I would like to have Mr. Victory present his views.

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. VICTORY, SECRETARY, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Senator TRUMAN. You may state your views on this bill, Mr. Victory, please.

Mr. VICTORY. This bill in the nature of an amendment I have just seen for the first time this morning, and so I am not prepared to submit any views whatever on that. I was instructed by the National Advisory Committee to present to your committee its one expressed view with respect to bill S. 738, and that was a provision in section 403 (b) authorizing the Interstate Commerce Commission to avail itself of the assistance of any of the existing research and technical agencies of the Government, and so forth, and providing that they are authorized and directed to conduct such scientific and technical researches, investigations, and tests as may be necessary.

Our committee would like to suggest the elimination of the wordsSenator TRUMAN. But we are not considering that bill this morning. We are considering S. 2 and its amendments.

Mr. VICTORY. Mr. Chairman, we have not considered S. 2 as amended.

Senator TRUMAN. Will you be ready to make a statement on it tomorrow?

Mr. VICTORY. Unless S. 2 contains material that relates to research in aeronautics, I would say that we shall not have any comment to submit, because the function of our committee relates solely to research.

Senator MCCARRAN. It does contain provisions for research, and we should like very much to have your Department give us your views. As the author of the bill I value your views very highly. I have had an opportunity to make some study of the work of your Department and I am very much interested in it, and I think it is one of the very finest adjuncts that the Government has.

Mr. Chairman, I invite comment from that Department. Mr. VICTORY. We will study it, Mr. Chairman, immediately. Senator TRUMAN. Is there a representative present from any other department who would like to be heard, so that we could get the benefit of your views?

I might say, Mr. Victory, that on page 5 of original S. 2, as introduced by Senator McCarran on January 6, you will find that section 2 at line 18 covers the same situation as the bill that you referred to. Mr. VICTORY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. That paragraph is identical with the reading of S. 738, but I have been told that it is not in the S. 2 amendment.

Senator MCCARRAN. That is true. We would like to have your comments.

Senator TRUMAN. Are there any other departments of the Government present through their representatives that would like to be heard now? No response.]

Senator MCCARRAN. If not, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that Mr. Behncke is here, and also Mr. Hamilton, representing the Air Line Pilots Association, and I should like to have them make statements.

Senator TRUMAN. Very well. We will be very glad to hear them. STATEMENT OF DAVID L. BEHNCKE, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. BEHNCKE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I represent the Air Line Pilots Association, the members of which fly on the air-line networks of the States, and also the air-line pilots operating in foreign service. Our organization represents practically 90 percent of the air-line pilots. There are in the neighborhood of a thousand pilots in our organization, and we have some very definite views to express on both of these bills, if we may.

I should like to start our presentation by having our executive representative, Mr. Edward G. Hamilton, open the discussion on S. 2. Senator TRUMAN. Proceed, Mr. Hamilton. You testified before this committee last year, did you not?

Mr. HAMILTON. Yes; Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD G. HAMILTON, EXECUTIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION

Mr. HAMILTON. I have a brief here, Mr. Chairman, and it would be much briefer and simpler if I just read the brief.

Senator TRUMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. HAMILTON. We favor S. 2 in principle, but there is a serious omission which we think should be corrected. bill, that is, the amended bill

By the terms of this

Senator TRUMAN. The amendment to S. 2? Mr. HAMILTON. The last amendment; yes. By the terms of this bill, the Air Mail Act of 1934 is repealed, and in the Air Mail Act there is a section, section 13, to be exact, which has done more to bring about peaceful relations between the pilots and their employers than any other one thing. To repeal this provision at this time, or at any time, would be to leave the doors wide open so that anything might happen from here on out.

Section 13 of the Air Mail Act establishes minimum rates of pay and maximum flying hours for pilots and it should, by all means, be retained in any new law that may hereafter replace the Air Mail Act.

Accordingly, we have two amendments to offer.

1. On page 6 after line 8, include the following definitionSenator MCCARRAN. Page 6 of S. 2?

Mr. HAMILTON. As amended; yes, sir.

After line 8, on page 6, add the following definition:

(m) The term "air pilot" includes "copilot."

2. On page 14, line 10, after the word "condition", insert a dash, drop down one line and insert "(1)" followed by the remainder of subsection (g) as written. At the end thereof insert the following:

(2) (a) That the rates of compensation, maximum flying hours and other working conditions and relations for air pilots of air carriers engaged in interstate commerce shall conform to decision no. 83 rendered by the National Labor Board on May 10, 1934, notwithstanding any limitation as to the period of its effectiveness included in said decision;

(b) That the compensation for air pilots of air carriers engaged in overseas and foreign commerce shall be at least comparable to and not less than the compensation of air pilots engaged in interstate commerce; and

(c) That nothing herein shall be construed as restricting the right of any such air pilots by collective bargaining through their lawful representatives to obtain higher rates of compensation and more favorable conditions of employment and relations.

(3) That the holder of such certificate shall comply with all the provisions of title II of the Railway Labor Act and any future amendments thereto.

This is the same protection which is now included in the Air Mail Act and which we are asking be transferred to this bill.

To illustrate what this provision means to the pilots, we recite briefly some of the disputes which have been peacefully settled since the enactment of this section:

Following the enactment of the air-mail law, none of the new contractors who came into being after the cancelation of the old air-mail contracts attempted to comply with the labor provisions of the airmail law. We filed with the Post Office Department a complaint against the worst offender. Following a hearing on October 25, 1934, a decision was rendered in our favor and starting January 1, 1935, all air lines with the exception of one complied. This one remaining air line finally complied on February 1 after being requested to do so by the Post Office Department.

By the terms of the Labor Board decision, which was incorporated in the Air Mail Act by reference, the decision was good for but 1 year. Accordingly, on May 10, 1935, one year from the rendering of the decision, one air line took advantage of this technicality by annoucing a 40-percent cut in pilots' wages. It became necessary to amend the Air Mail Act to clarify this section in order to protect the pilots from further unfair attempts to break down their working conditions. This ia a very good example of what will happen the minute this section is repealed.

In the fall of 1935 it was discovered that the same air line was still cheating the pilots out of some measure of the pay which was rightly theirs by means of juggling the seniority of their pilots. (By way of explanation, the pilots' pay, under the Labor Board decision, is increased from year to year according to length of service.) This matter was brought to a hearing before the Post Office Department on January 8, 1936, with the result that the company was ordered to reimburse their pilots for all the pay which had been withheld from them back to the date of the granting of the air-mail contract.

During the summer of 1936 it was found that one air line was deliberately flying its pilots far in excess of the maximum flying hours permitted by the Labor Board decision. Again a complaint was filed with the Post Office Department and again the matter was settled peacefully.

Further on this same point we quote from the testimony of the Honorable Karl Crowley, Solicitor for the Post Office Department given before this committee on August 6, 1935, when a similar bill, the McCarran bill of that time, was being considered. On page 121 of the hearings, Mr. Crowley said:

Section 13 of the present law is to be repealed by this bill. It is a provision which recites that "it shall be a condition upon the awarding or extending and the holding of any air-mail contract that the rate of compensation and the working conditions and relations for all pilots, mechanics, and laborers employed by the holder of such contract shall conform to decisions of the National Labor Board. This section shall not be construed as restricting the right of collective bargaining on the part of any such employees."

I cannot find anything in this bill that will give any protection whatsoever or provide any means by which pilots and mechanics may be protected.

Senator MCCARRAN. As a matter of concrete law at the present time I will admit it, and this committee can put that in as you offer it if it is desired, and that amendment will be offered, but it does not need to be as it is already a matter of law.

Mr. CROWLEY. We have been having considerable difficulty in some places in enforcing it. There have been strikes threatened but we have succeeded in settling several strikes, because of that provision.

It may be recalled that as the bill was finally approved by this committee it carried the amendment suggested by Mr. Crowley

and us.

It is self-evident that had not the pilots had protection in the airmail law, the disputes referred to probably would not have been settled without a strike. It is also self-evident that if this restraint is suddenly removed from the law, many of the air lines, if not all of them, would immediately attempt to lower the pay and increase the hours of their pilots. As a matter of fact, there are quite a number of air lines at this time who are violating the maximum-hour provision provided by this law, and it will soon become our unpleasant duty, as representatives of the pilots, to file still another complaint with the Post Office Department.

We are thoroughly convinced that if this protective measure is removed from the law at this time, the results will be disastrous as far as the pilots are concerned, and strike conditions are likely to ensue. Senator LEWIS. Have you a statement of the companies that are violating the law now with regard to hours?

Mr. HAMILTON. Do I have the actual names here?

Senator DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. HAMILTON. No; I have not.

Senator DAVIS. Can you insert them at this point in the record? Mr. BEHNCKE. We have the names and can furnish them very quickly.

Mr. HAMILTON. In the circumstances, we strongly urge that this committee amend bill S. 2 as suggested, to the end that the pilots and the industry will be at least as well off as they are now.

That concludes my statement.

Senator TRUMAN. In your appearance before the committee last year you said you favored the transfer of all air activities to one com

mission.

Mr. HAMILTON. That is correct, sir.

Senator TRUMAN. Do you still feel that way?

Mr. HAMILTON. Yes, sir; I still feel that way-more strongly than

ever.

Senator TRUMAN. Are there any questions, gentlemen?

Senator AUSTIN. I would like to ask a question.

Senator TRUMAN. Go ahead, Senator Austin.

Senator AUSTIN. In order to have your very able brief accompanied by reference to the Railway Labor Act, and for our facility in handling it, I would like to ask you if it is not true that the Railway Labor Act provided various methods of arbitration?

Mr. HAMILTON. That is true.

Senator AUSTIN. And the purpose of it is industrial peace, is it not?

Mr. HAMILTON. That is correct.

Senator AUSTIN. One provision creates boards of adjustment by agreement, does it not?

Mr. HAMILTON. That is true.

Senator AUSTIN. And if you can get that first method through, you would arrive at a solution of your problem without antagonism other than that which is natural in any controverted question, would you not?

Mr. HAMILTON. The Railway Labor Act is a mediation act. In other words, there is no minimum wage provision, no maximum hour provision. The Railway Labor Act was originally intended for the railroads. The railroads, in addition to the Railway Labor Act, have the 16-hour law and the 8-hour law, which are administered by the Interstate Commerce Commission. So this is practically the same thing. It is a minimum-wage law and a maximum-hour law which supplements the Railway Labor Act; but it seems to me it is an economic regulation of the industry and should be included in Section 2. Senator AUSTIN. When you have a dispute and proceed under the Railway Labor Act, the first step is to enter into a stipulation, if you can, by which you agree that the decision of the Board of Adjustment shall be finally binding on both sides. Is not that the first step?

Mr. HAMILTON. The Board of Adjustment interprets and applies collective bargaining agreements. Under our amendment this law